>>clerk: so mr. sucre, do you have anything to add? mr. duffy? okay. nothing further. so -- >> actually, i've got a question for mr. sucre. so a lot of this discussion this evening has been in regards to the orientation of the corner property. now -- and i understand that -- that the zoning administration -- administrator has already made a letter of determination or an e-mail of his determination. the question would be is in the eyes of the planning, is that -- is it oriented on 22nd or is it oriented on -- and i asked this earlier, but what i'm referring to is legally. is it on carolina or is it on 22nd? >> it is on carolina. >> okay. >> we are stating that the frontage for the purposes of creating the rear yard is oriented towards carolina. >> and sorry to interrupt, but during all this process, was it determined that the garages and the facade change was consistent with permits and approval? >> we didn't research the alterations that have occurred to the building at 897 carolina? >> i mean, do we know when that happened roughly? i mean, 'cause looking at the -- at

as you -- as just quoted to you in evidenced here, mr. sucre confirmed in writing that planning code 134c4b is the appropriate rear yard code based on site conditions. it is also important to note that assistant director elizabeth watte validated the use of r.d.g. for rear yard cottages to be applied to the project. her el administration follows the r.d.g.s by respecting the existing adjacent rear building cottage. the as a result a similar outcome of the reduced rear yard entitlement as established by mr. sucre. one planning staff fafred the planning code to be applied, and the planning director favored the r.d.g.s. both of those solutions and interpretations of the special lot situations is -- will provide preservation of rear yard mid open space and respect of the adjacent property. as mr. sanchez assessed -- i'm sorry. it is important also to note that permit holders, project sponsor from the architectural firm wrote a letter to richard su. , re stating, quote, the property to the south is set back so far that it is no street presence on ca

mr. sucre. >> jonas...okay. good afternoon, commissioners. rich sucre, planning department staff, here before you on behalf of linda hoagland. -- for the proposed project of 2918 mission street. as a reminder, the project includes development of 75 residential units, 6,700 square feet of class one living space. the project does not include any off street parking. at the sept 28 planning commission hearing, the planning commission adopted a motion to disapprove and directed planning staff to develop a disapproval motion. i've passed out copies of this for your review and consideration. subsequent to the hearing, the department realizes that we could have been more clear in how we conveyed some of the information on the new shadow study that we presented two weeks ago. we certainly appreciate the impacts. we have heard the concerns from the community and the board of supervisors regarding the new shadow cast and its potential upon the well-being and use and enjoyment of the school yard. as with much of our work within the larger mission, we try